I've spent a lot of time in the wilderness in the lower-48-statesin my 50-odd years, including 10 of those years in Colorado. And I believe we should have the right to carry and the right to protect ourselves and our families. That being said:

In all of my wilderness trips, I have never ever come close to needinga firearm for personal protection - either against animals or againsthumans.Consequently, I would question whether there really is a need to carry a gun for protection on a wilderness trip in the lower-48-states.

Also, IMHO, it is irresponsible tointentionally take my family into an area where a gun may be needed to protect them.Besides, how could avacation destination be much of a vacationif there is even a remote chanceI would have to shoot my way out?

I can certainly see some exceptions likeAlaska grizzly country, but it's in the city where I wouldfeel the need to pack heat for personal protection, not in the wilderness. The crack-heads and muggers are prowling the backalleys, not humping 60lbs of gear 5 miles to breath the fresh air and absorb the solitude. Also, there are probably better ways than a handgun to protect oneself in grizzly country, too.

But like I said at the top, I believe a person should be able to carry if a person feels the need to.

Just my personal opinion.

--twofer